Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticise. Don't you see the danger in that? — baker

I don't see how that cliche applies to this example. And what does this have to do with our discussion?

I'm actually expecting you to empathise with the Trumpistas. — baker

You have no knowledge of what I think of people who vote for Trump. For one thing I don't call them 'Trumpistas' since I don't think of them as a monolithic body, but rather a diverse group of people.

I think you here as a critic of Trump (as well as many others critics of Trump) are being too simplistic in interpreting the words, deeds, and intentions of the Trumpistas. And being so simplistic about them doesn't help in changing them of winning against them. — baker

Sorry are we talking about Trump or people who vote for Turmp. We seem to be swerving all over the road. Where have I interpreted deeds and intentions of Trump voters? Where is this even coming from?

That's what the bad faith in which you tend to approach communication makes you see. — baker

Nice.

Yeah, but calling out stupid does.

There are no witches, just some people engaging in fantasy role play.
A methodology you may well be employing at times here on TPF.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticise. Don't you see the danger in that?
— baker

I don't see how that cliche applies to this example. — Tom Storm

*sigh*

And what does this have to do with our discussion?

I'm telling you my reasons for what I'm telling you. As opposed to the condescension you accuse me of.

Where have I interpreted deeds and intentions of Trump voters? Where is this even coming from?

Your words.

E.g.

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue — Tom Storm

On a separate vein, some time ago I saw interviews with Trump supporters. Most of them said they would vote for him again because of his significant achievements and his great policies. Not one of them could name any. They just liked him. Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education/media/corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we? — Tom Storm

Yeah, but calling out stupid does. — 180 Proof

We'll see that in about a year.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticize. Don't you see the danger in that? — baker

I think my positioning of those voters is not unreasonable and it was posed as a question. Do you deny that the idea of political stupidity exists? It runs from the left to the right, so I am not fixated on T voters. And no, I don't think critics become like those they criticize. They might in some circumstances, but this is not necessarily the case.

As opposed to the condescension you accuse me of. — baker

Not condescension - you have been sneering and insulting. But this bickering is getting in the way of the thread and won't be resolved here.

And what does this have to do with our discussion?
I'm telling you my reasons for what I'm telling you. — baker

No. To me it looks like failing to make your case. What you said was this:

When Trump or someone like him wins again, it will be at least in part because his critics were playing on his terms.[/quote]

I simply asked you to connect the dots. Most people know this cliché about human behavior. I was merely asking you to demonstrate how this works in the Trump example.

We'll see that in about a year. — baker

Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. :rofl:

You're doing the exact same thing the Trumpistas & co. are doing: blame others, place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on the other person.

Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. — 180 Proof

Actual elections are not always in line with the previous polls. Surprises have been known to happen.

I suppose you just have more faith in the American people than I do.

Your supposition, like averring to wishful thinking, is unwarranted.

What? Does Trump(ism) not capture perfectly the essence of the American spirit, or at least the spirit of those Americans who actually vote or otherwise have the say?

According to popular Federal election results from 2016 until 2023, most Americans vote against Trump(ism). Simply, regardless of the nonpredictive year-before-the-election-polls pimped by the media, there are not enough MAGA morons in "the GOP base" to beat Joe Biden (or any other Democratic nominee for president (except, of course, effin' HRC)) in 2024. "Faith in the American people" has nothing to do with it, baker; it's math and the numbers don't lie.

@180 Proof You people already elected him once. Do you think the rest of the world (and perhaps even some Americans) have forgotten this? Do you think you can just move on from that, as if it never happened? No, it will take a lot to (re)gain trust after that first election. You'll have to prove that electing him the first time around was some perverse cosmic glitch, unique, and not an expression of what America really is.

I've no idea what you are talking about and apparently, sir, you don't either.

I would use a dictionary for that :-P

Elon Musk looks he will make a good presidency. He should pack in all the rockets, electric car and twitter X business crap, and run for the next president. Not doing so, would be stupidity.

And this is the kind of attitude that gets trumpism elected. Ser.

@stupidity – Res ipsa loquitur :confused:

Just what the world needs—more magnates as political leaders. :roll:

I think it would be wise to leave stupidity undefined.

It is where I always start and what I seek to leave.

Pretending to be stupid is a variety of stupidity that is sometimes passed for intelligence. Also when one is truly stupid one can pretend to be an intelligent who is merely pretending to be stupid.

The best definition I have heard is someone doing the exact same thing in identical circumstances and expecting a different outcome.

This is why human stupidity has its benefits. Sometimes something different does happen. — I like sushi

This is the worst definition (though commonly, this formulation supposedly defines insanity), followed by the reason why it is the worst definition.

Stupidity is just poor functioning, compared to a perceived norm, of one or several components of the voluntary portion of the central nervous system.

And this is the kind of attitude that gets trumpism elected. Ser. — baker

It is EXACTLY 180proof's attitude that resulted in the first T election.

I see, clearly, from outside the US, this happening again. Biden has been such an absolute disaster in so many ways that It's really, REALLY hard to believe that he, or another Dem, could be re-elected. It's obviously in the realm of genuinely possibility, and almost rises to likelihood - but given that:

Biden:
Approve: 37.9%
Disapprove: 55.4%
78% of D approve.

vs

Trump:
Approve: 42.2%
Disapprove: 53.1%
85% of R approve.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

It's hard to understand an attitude that writes off a reelection, given the absolute paucity of candidates with anything coming close to acumen or persuasive media presence. Seems like wishful thinking on the part of someone who can't understand T's election at all.

Thank you :)

But @180 Proof don't hear you ...

It is EXACTLY 180proof's attitude that resulted in the first T election. — AmadeusD

:rofl:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/855739

Hi mate,

Suffice to say nothing there has an effect on what i've said. I think it's far more to do with your affectations than much else. Shall leave this one be :)